Michaelsguardian.blogspot.com - A travel in scripture, Bible prophecy and the Word of our God and our Lord Jesus Christ through the eyes and soul of the last witness and chosen vessel, Michael surnamed Jackson

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God.
Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God.
Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not.
But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory.
We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Was this Michael Jackson's 2006 Raymone Bain Conspiracy?

Previously on this series of blog entries investigating the whereabouts of the Raymone Bain reported conspiracy, I had left off with an August 29th lawsuit filed by previous lawyers of Michael Jackson here. Source

Michael pictured with Raymone Bain

No lawsuit filed against Branca, Mottola, Malnik, Ratner or Green could be found. No complaints naming such other than the Carol Davis entry posted on another blog. However I did find this:

This reports that Michael dropped the lawsuit (possible settlement) but the link no longer works so I copied here from where it was posted on a message board:

“Troubled pop star Michael Jackson has now dropped his lawsuit against account firm Bernstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman & Sloan which he claimed made unauthorized deals. It is not known if Jackson who alleged negligence and breach of trust agreed to a settlement deal. The King of Pop sued the company in December 2006; he said that they were late in paying his taxes as well as entering into contracts without the singer’s permission.

The account firm tried to counter sue Jackson, however this action was dismissed. Bernstein, Fox, Whitman, Goldman & Sloan claimed that Michael Jackson owed them $1 million in unpaid bills. Michael has managed to stay out of the headlines since he was acquitted of the child sex abuse charges in 2005.”

Take a look at the list of lawyers owed money, according to Ayscough and he mentions other law suits filed by lawyers against Michael. Some of the names are very interesting. There are a number of lawsuits filed by attorneys against Michael at this time. It is unclear to me that this is the conspiracy that Raymone Bain put out the press release about, as it does not address Michael’s catalog nor his battle with Sony. The complaint also does not mention or petition for involuntary bankruptcy.

Ayscough represented MJ against Marc Schaffel. Schaffel was suing Michael at the same time Michael was facing trial.

In this complaint filed by Brian Ayscough on July 25, 2006, he listed quite a few creditors, in which most are lawyers. How did Mr. Ayscough get this information from the other creditors and why did they feel compelled to share this information? They were, according to the complaint, asked to stay on by Susan Yu and Tom Mesereau, who were also accused of non payment and bad faith.

Here is a list of the cases Ayscough said they either assisted in or provided exclusive services for:

Here is a list of the previous lawyers and business representatives listed on the complaint:

Zia Modabber, $400,000Brian Oxman, $1,250,000Michael Sydown, over $1,000,000Michael Abelson – in reference to being asked by him to approve services performed by Oxman. This should have been Abelson’s responsibility to pay A&M for that.

Now this firm claims that Mesereau and Yu were paid by Michael in September 23 of 2006 but had told Ayscough that they had not been paid yet and asked Ayscough to stay on saying they would be paid later, but were never paid. What sense does this make?

Why isn’t their complaint then against Mesereau and Yu? Why were they holding Michael accountable for the payments of ASSISTANTS of creditors?

And why and how would Randy Jackson be involved with this complaint? Did Randy just volunteer this information to someone who was trying to put the screws to his brother?

How would this law firm get the creditors and amounts of all these different lawyers and business managers if they had not been on a campaign?

Michael’s counter complaint

My friend has not been able to find actual documents for this, but she did send me this article:

“Michael Jackson is suing Los Angeles law firm Ayscough & Marar, accusing attorneys of trying to force him into bankruptcy. In papers filed on August 29 but unseen until now, Jackson accuses his former attorneys of conspiring with other lawyers, who represented him in the past, to put him into involuntary bankruptcy.”

This link shows document of proceeding and mentions Michael’s countersuit, filed August 29, 2006 (day after his 48th birthday) and the trial set for June 26, 2007. There is a discussion by legal professionals on the motions presented during this hearing. Anyone with more legal expertise than I can maybe comment on this.

This is written closer to lay terms. Both of these were hearings in reference to Michael not showing up for depositions. According to this link, Michael walked out on one deposition and failed to show on the date set to finish it.

As a result, Michael was ordered to pay the $216,000 to Ayscough and Marar plus interest.

However, this is not the same list of lawyers and business associates that Carol Davis mentioned in a now defunct justicesystem.net a list of the people mentioned in the conspiracy. Those people were:

“To all the fans around the world, for your information – please know that Michael Jackson’s publishing ATV and MIJAC catalogue is not for sale. However, there is a conspiracy to try and take these publishing companies from him. Suspected are the following: Al Malnick, Tommy Mottola, John Branca, Charles Koppleman, Brett Ratner, Howard Kofeman, Trudy Green. (search U.S. Justice Department)

Pass this information to the fans around the world that love and care for Michael. Sincerely, a watchful eye.”

Source: Carol Davis / Justice System

There is plenty of information here, but for some reason, I believe this is not what we are looking for. This is a can of worms that seems to open up into the hundreds of lawsuits filed for quick paydays from Michael Jackson.

Tomorrow, I want to do more work on the list Carol Davis gave us.

***To commemorate Michael's birthday this August 29th, fans from all around the world are invited to make a donation to a charity in Michael's honour. In July, we will vote on which charity to contribute to. In August, we will donate to the chosen charity. Vote now! Voting ends July 31. - Non-Profit***

36 comments:

Bonnie – thank you and hat was a great post. Wow, I am learning a new thing every day.

You said “It is unclear to me that this is the conspiracy that Raymone Bain put out the press release about, as it does not address Michael’s catalog nor his battle with Sony. The complaint also does not mention or petition for involuntary bankruptcy”. Why did Michael say on those interviews about the conspiracy on his catalog and he was on gag order? He must have heard and read it in the documents she provided him since she was his representative. I still believe there was some kind of conspiracy on his catalog; otherwise, he wouldn’t have said it.

Thank you Bonnie. So many lawsuits against Michael. He must be in hell during that time, besides the 2003 trial.I miss him dearly, but I'm glad he is not anymore in Earth. It was too too much for one person...

Mimi - Oh there was definately a conspiracy, I just don't think this case against Ayscough was it. First of all, none of these creditors were connected to the catalogs. The other group, Branca, Mottola, Green, Malnik and Rattner did have connections to Sony (Mottola) and the catalog. Mottola and Branca both were on the board back then, Malnik is his buddy and Ratt-ner is Mottola's buddy.

Bunny had mentioned the look on Michael's face in most of the pictures with Malnik and I've noticed the same thing. Michael looks absolutely just ANGRY! I have a couple more I should post on here. His eyes say everything, OMWord...

This is such a huge nightmare, and a total "no-win scenario." They (the Conspirators) were going to break MJ one way, or another--even if it meant picking him apart little by little. With that in mind, it's no wonder why Michael felt that the whole world was out to get him. It's also perhaps the reason behind his even isolating himself from his family. If his own brother (Randy) would sue him--geez...what other family member wouldn't jump on the bandwagon?

It's all such an awful, distasteful shame. Michael was surrounded by vampires no matter which way he turned. :(

For some reason, I remember Janet's quote at the BET's just after Michael passed: "To YOU (meaning the fans, etc.), Michael was an icon. (I suspect she also meant it to be a bit of an insult--just look it up on YouTube, you'll see what I mean.) To Us, Michael was family." Well, with a "loving" family like that...Nope, I'm going to just shut up and be quiet now.

What is the connection between any or all of the people on the Ayscough case list and Mottola, Branca, Ratner, Malnik, Green, Kaufman, Koppelman? There's a connection. I do not believe that the latter group is going to put their name out there in the lawsuits that were designed to force Michael into involuntary bankruptcy. They employ henchmen for their evil schemes to avoid being obvious. Connection of any possible combination?

Note to Bonnie: Remember your dream about the Deer? In it, you claimed you couldn't hear what the 8 deer were saying to you. Well, there you go. Don't listen to ANY Jackson. If Randy could sue his brother alongside the other conspirators, it makes further sense that the all-too suspiciously "helpful" Jermaine would also make a play via Thome, et. al.

Either way, it's pretty darned sad when one's own family is out to get you. :(

Ladyacquarius - LOL! I'm replying to both your posts about Randy. Randy did not sue his brother. What I gleaned from that is that this law firm somehow learned that Michael owed Randy money, if that is even true. There is also another rumor floating around that Randy was forcing one of his business people down Michael's throat during the 2005 trial and Michael refused to sign papers, sending this guy and Randy both away angry. I have this info and I believe it is in the next blog update. I don't know how true it is, but that was the rumor.

J - There is no connection, visibly between the Ayscough case and Branca/Mottola. I can tell you that Malnik did testify in one of the lawsuits from one of the creditors (Schaffel case? Still looking into that one) but by and large they are two separate camps.

I do not believe the Ayscough case is the conspiracy case. I have testimony from the 2005 trial that I will post and comment on tomorrow . . . very interesting.

Ladyaquarius - It was 10 deer total - 8 young deer and the mom and dad deer. All of them trying to talk to me at different intervals. So, was I right to shut the door on them? No, I don't think so. I think a lot of this is not completely true what is being said about the family. They are not perfect and they have their rivalries but I do not believe for none minute that any of them conspired with anyone outside the family to hurt or harm Michael either physically or financially . . . no way. They may fight amongst themselves, but I don't see outsiders convincing one to harm the other.

Wow, the "justice" system is just too complicated for me. If Michael walked out on a deposition, then it was probably unjust. It looks like the case was stacked against him. It also sounds like his lawyers representing him against Ayscough were not even arguing or presenting in his best interest...?

They just never stopped beating him down did they...

Bonnie, do you think maybe you couldn't hear or understand what the family was saying (the deer in Follow The Yellow Brick Road post) because of interference (gossip/media), you not being tuned in? Another thing that strikes me about that dream is the door was closed between Michael and his family and it sounds like Joe has information, wants to show you something.

Bonnie, it seems as if the catalogue was never meant to be out of certain hands. They made sure the Beatles lost total control of that catalogue by utilizing some of the tactics they tried to use on MJ. By the time the catalogue was sold to ATV the Beatles only owned a 31+%(non-controlling) interest in their own catalogue. Despite what is said about MJ stabbing McCartney in the back, what is true is McCartney couldn't afford the price and Y.Ono encouraged MJ rather that partner with McCartney, stating that she'd rather a friend had it. As for Randy Jackson, in particular, from all appearances, during that time (2003 onward), the moves he made regarding his and MJ's businesses were not successful. He appeared to need another line of work. What is truth, I wonder?

How could MJ have all these law suits from lawyers and accountants. Conspiracy for sure. Where did this investigation disappear to? It seems as if moves were made and are being made as in a chess game. All with a veil obscuring everything.

Thanks for clearing things up about the Randy involvement. But, I still think it explains why MJ had "issues" in fully trusting his family. This is perhaps the reason behind your closing of the door on them in your dream. However, then too...the Media has trashed that family in so many ways also. And, yes...there's always the apparent lack of agreement between them, which only serves to add more fuel to the bonfire, so to speak.

One last thing, I find it interesting to note that only Joe is willing to take an offensive against anyone pertaining to the death of Michael. The others in the family for the most part have been paid to be silent. Katherine wouldn't dare to "rock the boat" considering that she is dependent upon her allowance from the Estate and for caring for the 3 children.

There's been rumor that a couple of Jackson brothers have been "bought off" to keep quiet as well by the Estate. With that in mind, it's no wonder that Joe dropped his suit against the Estate, and is now pursuing AEG and Murray. So, perhaps that explains the Buck's nudging you in your dream? Maybe Joe's the only one doing anything because he knows something's rotten?

I read that Joe was not allowed to contest the will/executors because he was not named in the will. Katherine risked losing her allowance if she lost, so dropped the suit. Seems the perpetrators had it all sewn up! It will be interesting to see what is left once Prince is of age.

As Bonnie said they might have their own rivalries with each other but not selling him to outsider. If you really know how much all of them (the family) love each other, you need to read his book the “Moon walk”. You can see in that book how very close they grew up with each other. The deep love they have with each other established with their mother continues effort since they were babies. No amount of $$$$ will break the core. That’s what I believe and if anything different, I will listen.

The Kingofpop site with the Carol Davis statement has these words: "The statement issued by a confidential inside source" Who was the source? Is Carol Davis the inside source or someone else?

I looked for some info and found this:http://www.mjjboard.com/king-pop-news-desk/18015-john-branca-michael-sony-enjoyed-mutually-beneficial-history-2.html

Someone here says that Carol Davis announced this list of conspirators on April 4, 2005. What significance does this date hold? Why choose this date? When did the testimonies from the 2005 trial take place?

In such a large family there are bound to be disagreements over time. LaToya did Michael no favors in 1993, no matter what her personal circumstances were with her husband, she never should have said what she did.

Truthbetold2all: I thought a will could be contested (by Joe) unless he was specifically excluded, which he was not; he just wasn't mentioned at all. Honestly, while I feel this family is not doing enough to get to the bottom of Michael's death, I do have faith that the truth will come out and the family knows things the fans are not privvy to. And I don't believe his brothers could have been bought off; hope I'm not being naive in saying this; it just seems inconcievable.

I heard somewhere the estate fixed that avenue as well...not allowing certain rights to the kids when they are of age to "take control" including what is going to the kids as far as money...getting all once they are 40 years old...?

Bonnie is this true my source is sometimes right about these things but I never read anywhere about this...?

About Janet's comment:I'm sorry you felt that way but I really don't think it was meant to be insulting.I thought she wanted to point out that he was human. Even though he was this iconic figure he was like everybody else in that sense.

What made me do a double take was Jermaine's announcement of Michael's passing but to his credit I believe he did say,"My brother" and went on to say "legendary King of Pop passed away ..." that struck me weird but I guess that's just me and my sub conscious questioning of Jermain Jackson's actions.Hope I don't offend Jermain's supporters.

I too believe that the truth will indeed come out, and that yes...the Jackson family knows of things that we the fans are not privy to. However, I'm thinking/suspecting that it's those "things" that are rather frightening/intimidating, and yes...it IS possible that a few have been "bought off" as a means of insuring silence. It all points back to Sony, Branca, et. al. don't it? Fear speaks in loud volumes here. After all, if these people were entirely capable of murdering Michael, their brother...just what could they do to any one of them? Worse, it's quite a logical suspicion. The current players being listed off in Bonnie's current blog entry here I suspect are just that...players, but these people had "bosses" calling the shots from behind the scenes. Again, I'm sure it all points back to Sony, Branca, et. al. At least, it's been the pattern thus far.

Article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153414,00.html is dated April 14, 2005, a couple of days after Carol's statement.

The article says that Michael was offered a deal to accept a "permanent government" of inside circle that consists of these people:"music publisher Charles Koppelman ..., attorneys John Branca and Al Malnik, Jane Heller of Bank of America and private investors represented by Goldman Sachs."

In return Michael would have to sell most of his share in Sony/ATV catalog. His debts would be paid, and in return he would get a only $10 million in cash, and only $7-8 million annual income.

Compare that with Wikipedia (this text seems to be no longer at Wikipedia, but it's cited at http://www.hitsville.org/2008/06/22/catching-up-with-michael-jacksons-finances/):"As of June 2008 With Michael holding 50% of the Beatles catalog and Sony/ATV investing in new music publishing’s Michael makes a yearly earnings of $350 million dollars a year."

This article also says: "Jackson considers Branca one of the "conspirators," since his former attorney would reap a 5 percent commission on this sale — almost three times as much money as Jackson will make."

Celebrities and wealthy people deal with lawsuits often, so it would be no surprise that Michael has dealt with many. However, was there any other time, aside from the list of Ayscough cases, where he dealt with that MANY at once?

Yes, I believe something must have irked Michael for him to walk out on a deposition. I agree with you on what those reasons may have been. That is a possibility that his lawywers may not have been properly representing him. I mean he walked out on one dep. and didn't show up for the reschedule. Something definitely ticked him off.

"Bonnie, do you think maybe you couldn't hear or understand what the family was saying (the deer in Follow The Yellow Brick Road post) because of interference (gossip/media), you not being tuned in? Another thing that strikes me about that dream is the door was closed between Michael and his family and it sounds like Joe has information, wants to show you something."

jomc12 - I had some help from B.R. on that research. I will pass your compliment along to them :o) I got in so late tonight I won't be able to get my blog entry in for tonight. I still had three links to research for it. Very interesting info on Branca and Mottola. You know, I would be willing to separate Mottola from Sony but Bandier is still CEO of that Sony/ATV and they are not innocent. This stuff started before Michael's battle with Mottola.

Bandier is the one that has always had that Sony/ATV catalog at arms length even fore Sony partnered with it. He was the one bidding against Michael for it, he was the one quoted as saying he would "kill" for a good music catalog and he was the one MANAGING the catalog under Universal before Michael accepted the offer from Sony for the 50% in 1995 and now Bandier is CEO of the Sony/ATV Music Publishing company. I mean, I can almost slip on the saliva dripping from these people's mouths! How can people be so stinking greedy?

I don't know what Randy's story is. Michael probably freaked because he was still high strung from that trial . . . who knows? I'm willing to give Randy the benefit of a doubt. I do not think any Jackson brother sold Michael out to anyone. I just don't see it in them. I see arguments and I see rivalry, but not hatred.

ladyaquarius1962 - I believe you are right about Michael having trust issues with his family. No doubt. I see it as one of those things where, "we can mess with each other, but nobody outside family better lay a finger on one of my brothers" type thing.

I believe some of the family is probably more versed on what is going on investigation wise then dad Joe, and this is why Joe is filing suits. Michael shut his dad out of many business things. I don't know who Joe has representing him now, unless it's still Oxman, but Oxman in my opinion? He's barking up the wrong tree. Wrongful death suit. That is a civil case. What happened is criminal. Why did Joe back off of contesting the will? Makes no sense.

"I read that Joe was not allowed to contest the will/executors because he was not named in the will. Katherine risked losing her allowance if she lost, so dropped the suit. Seems the perpetrators had it all sewn up! It will be interesting to see what is left once Prince is of age."

Those judges in that state all need to be disbarred!!! What a circus! I'm so angry about that bull**** I can't even comment on this! Something is going to happen though . .. you watch and see.

"Someone here says that Carol Davis announced this list of conspirators on April 4, 2005. What significance does this date hold? Why choose this date? When did the testimonies from the 2005 trial take place? "

The testimony in reference to the investigation by Interfor for Mesereau on John Branca, Mottola, Malnik and Weizner and Konitzer I believe was in May. This will be on my blog update tomorrow. Not sure on the date, but I believe it was in May.

Yes, age 40 for full control of estate, age 30 to get their $33million each, which in my opinion is a bunch of tommyrot! Who does Branca think he is kidding? Everyone is watching! That cork will be dead before those kids reach 30! So who runs it after Branca and Howie bite the big canoli in the sky?

ladyaquarius19620- You are absolutely right. It most definitely is Sony/Branca/Rottola behind all this. Bandier is also a strong possibility behind this as CEO of the ATV catalog.

You know, when the news first came out that Evan Chandler was found dead, I thought it was poetic justice. Now? With three people dead that knew Michael? Everything is suspicious.

Jeff - This article from Fox that you posted is why, amongst others, that I believe the petty "conspiracy" substitute of Ayscough is not the lawyers that Bain was talking about. They were just the tool. Michael walked out of the deposition for a reason. Michael knew what was going on all along. But I smile because I also believe something else happened.

The catalog is still - all 50% of it - in the Estate control, meaning Fortress bailed Michael out before this could go into play. Then Colony bought out the Fortress loan. Colony made an inquiry into purchasing (Michael's half? Sony's half? All of it?) ten days after Michael passed away. Why? Anyone have a clue? What would Colony want with a music catalog? They are a property investment company. Waleed is partnered with Colony (since 2006?) and with Anschutz buying up media, press and entertainment companies, (or pieces thereof), I was wondering.

I just got word today that the Xanadu project got their funding to complete. I will have to look into where the funding came from. Has anyone looked into this? Does this not remind you of something . . . like a 1995 Press conference between Mike and Waleed?

Bonnie commented on Bunny's comment on the photos from the previous blog entry: I think we all see that look in Michael's eyes in these photos and others with Malnik and Bret Ratner, but it also makes me sick when you see in these (and others) that whenever those guys are photographed with Michael someone always just HAS to be touching him as if he were just an oddity or a show piece. I think Michael sensed this and maybe even felt he had to let himself be visually raped. I hate to verbalize it that way...it just appears that way. We've all seen the different expressions of happiness, playfulness, love, etc in Michael's eyes (especially over the last 13 months)and the lack of it in these photos and others with Malnik and Ratner are disturbing. Also, I was so touched many, many months ago reading Bret Ratner's comments on his site about Michael and so sad to hear he let Michael down too, like so many others.

Dear MJ-Fans,we are the founders of this Facebook-group:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112283208818507&v=walland this petition against the broadcasting of "Living With MJ" on the German TV-channel N 24:http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/michael.htmlThe target of your Campaign is to put pressure on TV-stations of ALL countries, but we couldn't find further information on your Facebook-page on how you intend to achieve this...We think it would be important to contact several groups and probably form a big association.Would you like to join and what are your ideas to achieve our important goal to stop Martin Bashirs documentary?We are looking forward to your reply!Thank you very much!mjjilymoschwie@web.de

I WONDER IS THIS THE REASON THAT MICHAEL ISN'HERE..BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CONTROL MICHAEL;S BUSINESS AND MAKE HIS BUSINESS DECISIONS THAT THEY THOUGH WAS RIGHT FOR HIM.. IN TURN MAKING MONEY FOR THEMSELVES.. INTERESTING THOUGHT ISN'T AND AT THE SAME TIME ,,HAVING SOME FAMILY MEMBERS ANGRY WITH YOU TOO.??? I HAVE HAD THESE VIBES FOR SOME TIME.. AND THEY WON'T GO AWAY...

MICHAEL WAS A SHREWED BUSINESS MAN..HE GOT IT FROM HIS FATHER.. AND HE HAD BEEN IN THE BUSINESS LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS..NOBODY SAW THE REAL MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON COMING, NOR DID THEY EXPECT HIM TO DO BUSINESS THE WAY HE DID.. HE WAS NO LONGER A CHILD HE HAD BECOME A MAN.. AND DECIDED THAT WAS DONE TO OTHER'S IN THE BUSINESS WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO HIM.. AS FOR MICHAEL'S WILL.. THE COURT WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED A LAWYER IF THERE WAS NONE IN PLACE.. AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE SET FORTH IN THE WILL.. INCLUDING PROVIDING FINANCIALLY FOR MICHALEL'S CHILDREN AND MOTHER.. AND FATHER..BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT JOE WAS LEFT OUT.. ANY OTHER DEBETS INCLUDING TAXES WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF ,, BUT HIS DEBTS WOULD HAVE BEEN WIPED OUT..REALLY.. MS.Katherine and Michael children would have received their monthly payments , the way they should have. Michael didn't have to have his own lawyer , the court would have given him one...

IF MICHAEL' FINANCES WHERE THIS BAD,, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE..CAUSE HE HIMSELF OFFERED TO AUCTION OFF CERTAIN ITEMS IN HIS OWN AUCTION BOOK..SO..JUST WHERE IS ALL OF THIS IS COMING FROM.. AND WHO.. DON'T LOOK SOME WHERE ELSE JUST LOOK IN FRONT OF YOU AND ALL THE PLAYERS ARE THERE.. THOSE THREE LOANS CAUSED ALL THIS FINANCIAL HARD SHIP AND $ONY NOT ALLOWING MICHAEL TO DO ANY BUSINESS HERE TO REPAY THE LOANS,BECAUSE IF THEY HADN'T DONE ALL THIS..THE SALE'S OF INVINCIBLE , BUT ONLY INTEREST FREE.. NO EXTRA MONEY FOR $ONY AND MICHAEL COULD HAVE REALLY BOUGHT $ONY OUT CAUSE HE HAD THE M.O.N.E.Y TO DO IT WITH... THE SLAVE MASTER HAD A GOOD SLAVE HE WORKED HARD AND BROUGHT HIM MUCH WEALTH, SO MUCH THAT NO ONE COULD TOUCH THEM..THEN ONE DAY THE SLAVE ASKED FOR HIS FREEDOM.. AND THE SLAVE MASTER SAID" I DON'T THINK SO" YOU OWE ME MORE YEARS.. AND THEN I WILL SET YOU FREE, UNTIL THEN YOU ARE MINES AND ALL THAT YOU OWEN. SOUND FAMILAR?

About Me

We are living in Biblically significant Times. Ironically it was the most persecuted man in modern history that lead me to dig deeper into the Bible and taught me more about God than any other human being on the planet. And that man is Michael Jackson.
I started a blog to defend him. I ended up researching him and learned just why they were after him. They did everything they could to shut him down. In the song "Cry" he said "take over for me", so that is what I am doing. God bless that man and his faith and strength

Michael And God

"Like the Bible says. A child should be leader of them all, and to be led by that kind of innocence. Didn't Jesus say 'bring on the children?' Be like the children. Not childish, but child-like. That kind of innocence."

Michael Jackson in the Martin Bashir outtakes

"Children show me in their playful smiles the divine in everyone. This simple goodness shines straight from their hearts and only asks to be lived." Michael Jackson Oprah Winfrey Interview

"I avoid using the term 'religion', because many people say 'my religion' this and 'my religion' that. Why should it be 'my' religion? I just believe what’s in the Bible with regard to which religion is involved. I simply believe.... I believe in it and I get down on my knees every night and thank God and ask Him to lead the way."

1979 Ebony Magazine interview

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER

Copyright disclaimer; Under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976 allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship research, etc. This site may contain copyrighted material

the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is used solely for the purpose of private study and research which constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Fair use is permitted by copyright stature

that might otherwise be infringing. Non profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of “fair use.” The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have interest in receiving the included information for their own research and study.